We apologize for the inconvenience
James R said:
On the whole, I agree with you. The level of actual debate in the Religion forum, as opposed to sniping and name calling, has got worse over the years, I think. There are many interesting things that could be discussed about religion, but the majority of posts harp on about the existence or non-existence of God - a topic that has been done to death.
One solution to consider would be to move the entire current docket of the Religion subforum to the archive, strike the subforum itself, transform Comparative Religion into Theology, and move that subforum into the Philosophy forum.
Under that rubric, we can do what we've never really done for any of the philosophical or social science subfora, and demand a basic standard of academic integrity. Theses need not be explicit, merely
useful and
functional.
For many, it's enough to say the Bible is a joke, or that it is contradictory, but I think a more substantive question can be pinned to the very beginning of the Bible:
Why did God lie?
Because that's certainly the appearance if you read Genesis. And there are, certainly, answers to be asserted; one of my favorites is that a day equals a thousand years, but I like that one because it is so desperate.
Or,
Who was God talking to? Read Genesis 3 to find out what that's about.
In recent months the story of Lot has become quite important to some battling in the gay rights struggle. After all, God blesses a man for offering his daughters up for gang rape. This seems a substantive point for many listening to Christians drone on about sexual morality.
Or the story of Amalek. God actually appears to admit a mistake insofar as he repents of Saul's kingship because the king failed to carry out a genocide at God's orders. This is especially relevant, since the name Amalek occasionally finds its way into the international discussion over the Israeli/Palestinian issue.
In 2007, I raised a thread about Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. That discussion could easily have occurred in a context restricted to the theological question of whether or not the Bible actually forbids a blood transfusion; I went ahead and threw my own editorial sentiment in, blasting a dead woman for skipping out on her kids in exchange for the glory of God. And yes, one could argue that such a commentary was extraneous. It was, after all, the primary thrust of the discussion.
There is a fascinating debate to be had about the King James crowd and a Bible (Revised Standard Version) that I use for reference that has since been pulled and revised. Should the Hebrew Scriptures be regarded according to their own historical context, or should they be transformed—essentially annexed—into a Christian context? The latter changes the meaning and significance of some passages.
These are the sorts of discussions that challenge atheists and theists alike. And they require more than simply reiterating opinions about whether Christ is King or God is a bucket of horseshit. Rather, such discussions demand historical and academic sources, considerations of context and nuance, and a perspective that includes the effects of religious sentiments on society as a whole. And if we demand such consideration, we give ourselves the leverage to actually deal with the empty proselytization that occurs on all sides of the line.
Discussions of religion can make a valuable contribution to a forum like ours, which is constantly described as a place of science, but really isn't. We can strangle a good number of our trolls if we demand some sort of academic integrity, and transforming our religious discussions in to theological considerations would be one way to start. Religion is religion, and multifaceted in itself. But theology can be specifically said to involve art, history, psychology, anthropology, philosophy, archaeology, linguistics, cosmology, mathematics, and probably a few other disciplines that escape recall at the moment. And it offers much more to our community in terms of learning potential—for both readers and writers of the discussions—than the current evangelical hoedown.
My impression is that this is true for some. But then, there's not much quality in the questions put to them, either, so there's not much incentive to put in much effort.
The low quality of the issues raised by the majority of religionists is a Sciforums tradition from the outset. And it used to be significant insofar as that poor performance reiterated the general belief that rational processes are more intelligent and bring smarter outcomes than shallow dependence on myth. Back when you registered it was still common to hear the argument that atheists were generally smarter than theists. Statistically they had more education and made more money. And some of our atheists actually showed that intelligence. These days, though, the alleged intelligence of atheists is reduced to a slogan as such. There is not a whole lot to be said for actually showing it.
Again, this appears to be true for some on both sides of the line.
I think you're equivocating here. Perhaps I'm showing my judgmental side, but in many cases theists just can't help it. They're immersed in a philosophy and lexicon that doesn't necessarily account for the hateful nature of what they're doing. There comes a point where it actually looks like psychological dysfunction through operant conditioning. In those cases, people need
help.
But our atheists are supposed to be above that. It's part and parcel of the assertion of intelligence. Yes, they're human and prone to all manner of fault and corruption, but there is something much more willful about their vice than their religious neighbors who are often lashing back the only way they know how.
In S.A.M.'s case, one bit of advice I would give her is to be a bit more subtle about it. Which is, of course, strange, since some people need it writ large in thirty-foot flaming letters before they get the point. The excerpt of the post in the first warning seems perhaps a bit blatant, but then again, so is the anti-theistic argument—if we can even call it that.
The second warning she posted, though, is much more troubling. I mean, I've never known S.A.M. to outright
lie in such a manner, so my presumption is that the posted warning is accurate. But that only adds to the confusion. That one-word post—"reported"—is fairly common around here, and apparently I haven't been paying enough attention to our Warning log because, frankly, I had no clue we were actually issuing any kind of sanctions over them.
Another piece of advice I would give S.A.M. would have to do with the Sufi concept of polishing the mirror. But that seems a bit one-sided, since so many of our atheists' mirrors, as such, look like junior high locker mirrors, covered with stickers so that you can only see one eye in the reflection. And no wonder, perhaps; it would seem that certain among our atheists are afraid of their reflections, and think it unfair that they should ever have to gaze upon their own countenances.
You know almost as well as anyone how loudly I've criticized String and Madanthonywayne over their handling of the Politics subforum; anything short of "spraying blistering venom" would be an understatement. But I've largely left Skin to his own in part because I know pretty well where his sympathies lie, and mine aren't too far off the same path. Also, I just haven't been attending the Religion subforum much lately. Still, though, I would be hard-pressed, were it me, to justify that flag considering the content of the post she reported.
It would seem that I need to start paying more attention to the Religion subforum, if only so I can get a better handle on what the hell is going on around this site.